and i will never forget the fa, the expression that came over yeltsin. >> narrator: yeltsin's confidants say by the end of his life, he would come to agree with clinton. >> before boris yeltsin died, he told intimates that it was a great mistake for him to have selected putin as his successor. >> narrator: the signs were there from the beginning. putin moved to consolidate power. one of his first targets: television. >> one of the first things he did was take control of television, because more than 90% of russians got all their news from television. ♪ ♪ >> narrator: during the yeltsin years, independent television channels, like ntv, flourished, even as they ridiculed political figures. >> ntv has a comic show called "kukly"-- "puppets." and when putin comes to rise in public life, it features a putin puppet, as well, and he's never portrayed very flatteringly. >> (straining) >> putin apparently was driven to madness by this show, and by the way he was portrayed on it, the way he was mocked on it. >> narrator: ntv and its owner, vladimir gusinsky, came into the crosshairs of putin's

can you comment about that specifically with clinton and yeltsin? guest: that is a great clip, that summit was a particularly contentious one, and you can see yeltsin saying clearly we do not want this to happen and you can see clinton trying to square the circle. president clinton was in a very challenging position. she comes into office, he is a young president -- he comes into office, he is eight young president from arkansas and he sees a lot of foreign policy issues pressing us. his focus was more on domestic issues. the problem is that the united states has to balance between the desires of central europeans and on the other hand moscow and additionally ukraine, so the question is how do you square triangle. triangles, unlike circles, can be squared. central europeans want to be in nato, then you have got moscow sitting do not want nato enlargement into their, and then you have ukraine needing a role to find for itself. the partnership for peace is part of that triangle. the pols joined through clenched teeth, but president clinton personally

it was nearly all transcripts from clinton yeltsin summit. as i got these clinton documents declassified i realize the phrase that when inch over the course of the '90s gradually took on the opposite meaning. in other words, initially for james baker it meant nato will move not one inch eastward, but by the end of the '90s it had taken on the exact opposite meaning. washington had realized by then that it could not only win big it could win bigger. not one inch of europe need to be off limits to nato. there could be an open door basically in perpetuity. now, if there's one main take away from the book it's that nato enlargement wasn't one entity, wasn't one thing. there were multiple ways to enlarge nato and they were known at the time, and his decision to go for a manner of expansion that has an endless open-door was a conscious choice. there were people pushing back against it at the time to for example, the british said the way we should expand nato is we should do it once. we should take our time while russia is weak, pick some really goo

and yeltsin, like also russian leaders, had a corruption problem. more specifically, the problem yeltsin on the 1997 was that there was a prosecutor in russia it was investigating corruption at the highest levels of the kremlin, including yeltsin and his family. and for a time, it seems like that corruption relegation might be the undoing of yeltsin and his family and his cronies. volodymyr putin, as head of the fsb, to care of that problem for boris yeltsin. putin arranged for a videos of your broadcast on on gentle television. the show the prosecutor or somebody who maybe looked like the prosecutor in bed with not one but two, very young females. the video is low enough quality and was shot from sort of a angle that you couldn't necessarily tell with the naked eye with those granolas with these girls in this about. but, putin stepped up. and his authority as the head of the fsb. vladimir putin assured lotion public that he could guarantee that the man in the video was in fact that prosecutor. and so that was the end of that prosecutor. and that wa

, being groomed by boris yeltsin in order to cover for boris yeltsin and his family. and. and you know, the allegations, the criminal allegations that were being made against members of wars, yelton's family, not just in russia, but in western europe and so forth. and to, to provide the yelton family that kind of cover. and one of the 1st things vladimir putin was assigned by president yeltsin was the pacification program. the russians undertook in the north caucasus, and chechnya, which was cruel and brutal. so what am i worried about? i'm worried about a repeat of that pacification program in ukraine. what is it that we can do, steve? we can supply, and we can sanction, and we can support. we can supply the ukrainian fighters and what fighters, they are showing the world. they are these people who are literally coming out of their day jobs, who many of whom haven't been in the military for a while, are protecting their homeland with the guts and with support from the west. it is important that we continue to do that 2nd sanction. we sanctions take a while, steve, to

vladimir putin as head of the fsb took care of that problem for boris yeltsin. putin arranged for a very to be broadcast on national television that showed the prosecutor, or somebody who may be kind of looks like the prosecutor, in bed, with not one, but two young very young females. the video was low enough quality and it was shot from sort of oblique enough angles that you couldn't necessarily tell with the naked eye who, who this grown man was with these girls in the bed, and vladimir putin assured the russian public that he could guarantee that the man in the video was in fact, that prosecutor. and so that was the end of that prosecutor and that was the end of the corruption investigation into boris yeltsin and his family, and in gratitude, or at least in payback, boris yeltsin decided that he would name as the next prime minister of russia, and the next president of russia, that fsb guy who helped him out, vladimir putin. that's how vladimir putin rose to power in the first place in russia. that's how he got control of the russian government. by generating

yeltsin m a choice in 1999 who would he sort of set up as his successor and as you recall, there were a number of prime ministers that were tried out and failed for one reason or another, and putin, a case officer, managed to get that. i would like to add one thing though, which is that you know, there's plenty to criticize what the u.s. did or didn't do in 1990's with regard to russia, but the first thing i'd say is, we manage our foreign policy based on the information we have, the choices that we think are in front of us. it's an imperfect process and we do the best we can and sometimes it doesn't work out exactly the way you would have liked, but the second thing i would say is that the russians have agencies. russia as a country, the leadership and the people. and when we talk about these events in the united states, understandably of course, we talk about it from an american centric point of view. we did this, we did that, blah, blah, blah. and it's like all the of these other countries have no agency, but actually they are the most important actors in their own story. >> that's

like me would refer to as this bad tool in 1993 and boris yeltsin many people believe by turning his tax on the white house, he himself was dealing a blow to russia's halting effort to become a democracy and you were there for the election of 1996 in russia where there was a corrupt bargain to purchase the election on his behalf. just decided by many people in washington as a way to avoid a return the communists to power. was that an original sin of russian democracy? was at the moment when something like putin became inevitable? >> i don't know is the short answer. i would just say that the intelligence services had always wanted more power and obviously that's where that comes from. there was a choice. yeltsin had a choice in 1999 who he was going to set up as his successor and there were a number of prime ministers e tried out and failed for one ed reason or another and put in was as as the case officer managed to get back. i would like to add one thing which is that there's plenty to criticize about what the us did or didn't do with regard to russia but the first thing i'd say is

the next year there duration in its final year this oh, just bring in cost cutting the real easy for yeltsin up the 9. is this a re right he st. military, i believe a proud past day saas ah, promoting patriotism and country via union but remained. oh, tonal russia.

>> he came in to replace a man named boris yeltsin. boris yeltsin was the original president after the fall of the soviet union. boris yeltsin was a crazy guy, sort of drunk, and he allowed the oligarchs, these 22 oligarchs, to steal 40% of the country. the rest of the russians were living in destitute property. i and everybody else in the country were desperate for somebody to restore order. putin presents himself as a modern technocrat. he wasn't drunk, he was slim, he spoke english. he remembered things from meeting to meeting. for the first couple of years, he behaved kind of like a boring technocrat, no personal charisma at all, and we thought he was going to be getting rid of the oligarchs. it turned out he wasn't interested in getting rid of the oligarchs, he wanted to become the biggest oligarch himself. there is an expression that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and that was the story of putin. he became immensely corrupt and powerful and it got worse and worse until 22 years later, he is the richest man

the power brokers in russia that actually aided and supported putin in his bid to take power after yeltsin? without you, putin might have struggled. with you, he was a politicalforce. do you regret your association with him? do you think he changed or did you get him wrong at the beginning? and you obviously paid a very heavy price, not least ten years in russian prison. and you today are a very passionate campaigner against putin and for what you call an open russia, with an open russia foundation, with an anti—putin coalition of exiled politicians. you are doing everything you can to change russia from outside but would you accept that what we see today is the failure of your political campaign against putin? i'm sure you are aware of the total information control that the kremlin operates. you're aware of the narrative that putin and his associates are giving to the russian people. that this is russia's defensive war, that nato is seeking to undermine russian security and that russia has a fundamental right to send its forces into a war which is safeguarding russian culture, russian h

yeltsin wanted to see that, i guess. he was amazed by what was on the shelves of american stores. the bounty we have. i think it moved him to become emotional about it. it also moved him to give up his role in the communist party in russia and try to start reforming his country. indeed, he was quoted as saying if the russian people could see what's on the shelves here, there would be a revolution. that's pretty amazing. so what are we doing here in this country? the regulatory agencies, policies come out of this administration and the state one in california, are basically running agriculture off the map. taking the water away from farmers in california is a big example. people around the country may be watching, why does that affect me? bunch of california problems. they are all messed up out there, anyway. what's important is that so many of these products we grow in california benefit the whole country. there are at least a dozen crops 90% to 98% of them that americans consume are grown in my home state. i went to this irrigation district meeting just recently here in my distri

yes to purchase that election on yeltsin's behalf. justified by many people here in washington as a way to avoid a return the communists to power with that an original sin, you know of russian democracy was at the moment when something like putin became inevitable in your view. i don't know is the short is the short answer. i would just say that. the intelligence services had always wanted more power and obviously that's where he comes from and you know there there was a choice yeltsin had a choice in 1999 who he would sort of set up as his successor. and as you recall, there were a number of prime ministers that were tried out and failed for one reason or another and putin, you know case officer managed to to get that i would like to add one thing which is that, you know, there's plenty to criticize about what the us did or didn't do in the 1990s with regard to to russia. but the first thing i'd say is we manage our foreign policy based on the information. we have the choices that we think are in front of us. it's it's an imperfect p

yeltsin, gorbachev, anyone. and that is ukraine and georgia, within the russian strategic heartland, joining a hostile military alliance. they will never accept that. the u.s. foraged ahead. september, 2021 policy statement amplifies it. it states it explicitly. we will go ahead and we will continue to arm ukraine. if you want to imagine what that is like from the russian point of view, understood well by high u.s. level statesman -- high-level u.s. statesman, it is if -- it is as if mexico were to join a chinese run military alliance and carry out joint exercises with the chinese army. place weapons in mexico. aimed at washington. we wouldn't tolerate that. it would never. not mexico, not anywhere in latin america. remember the cuban missile crisis? inconceivable. notice that this is no infringement on the sovereignty of mexico. mexico is essentially neutral. it is not part of any military alliance. it has restrictions. it cannot do what i just described. it cannot join a chinese run military alliance and carry

in the 1990's, it was difficult for boris yeltsin as president of russia to negotiate with ukrainian leadership and except this was a separate country, but he did. what happened was, first of all, in 1994, he has a beautiful memorandum. -- you to pass memorandum -- budapest memorandum. ukraine give up its nuclear weapons. so many of the soviet nuclear weapons had been stationed there. the united states and russia and great britain and ukraine got together and they signed a memorandum where ukraine said we are giving up our nuclear weapons and we are going to have assurances are territorial integrity and sovereignty will be respected by the signatories. russia signed a memorandum giving the security assurances. they were not guaranteeing various diplomatic reasons but they were assurances. in 1997, after a lot of bargaining, russia and ukraine signed a friendship treaty with boris yeltsin still in power, again guaranteeing territorial integrity and sovereignty. basalt a lot of border disputes. it had been difficult for them to agree on the status of parts of the border between ukraine

turned out what i was getting was the bromance in print it was nearly all transcripts from clinton yeltsin summit. back to main point phrase not 1 inch. the got these documents declassified i realize the phrase not 1 inch over the course of the '90s gradually took on the opposite meaning. in other words, initially for james baker met nato will move not 1 inch eastward but by the end of the '90s it had taken on the exact opposite meaning. washington had realized by then it could not only win big it could win bigger. not 1 inch of europe needed to be off limits to nato but there could be an open door basically in perpetuity. now if there's one main take away from the book it is that nato enlargement was not one entity it was not one thing for their multiple ways to enlarge nato and they were known at the time.f this decision to go from manner of expansion has endless open door with a conscious choice, there are people pushing back at the time for example the british said that we should expand nato's we should do it once we should take t our time while russia is a weak accent really good alic

another president, however, and the times it was said by president yeltsin in 1992 in these statements in his statement and the un security council. we can only regret that the democratic operations of the people of russia in early nineties have, by putting regime been incrementally turned to their opposite aggression hatred and soviet style thinking and reflections. including in the area of human rights and find a mental freedom. and now we hear completely different statements here in the united nations from the russian federation. they speak alone. we hear from the russian ambassador that there is a warfare in ukraine and civilians are killed in war is being fed as a matter of fact. this monday in cold blood and it's an up as an absolute normal course of action, also known as, quote unquote special operation. so we agree with the describing of killings as something normal. the only healthy should be know, in order to contribute to the maintenance of the house and the house of human rights mechanism. all of you received the russian diplomatic note yesterday in which our collective eff

result of the northern most after such a statement, it was a blessing that president clinton, boris yeltsin, had enough will, and determination to make ukraine eliminate their nuclear weapons. but it wasn't for free. with 1st, the united states offered ukraine $350000000.00 in aid by black mailing and a reversal towards russia. ukraine was able to bargain for another 175000000 to dismantle the nuclear weapons. and 155000000 in economic aid from the united states . but the ukrainian politicians clearly made a bad deal. cost on perceived $2000000000.00 for the elimination of a nuclear potential 4 times smaller. and they received a 50 percent stake in the joint cossack us oil company tank each chevron. but neither the economic aid nor the nationalist card helped crowd shook under strong public pressure. early presidential elections were demanded. in 1994, he was defeated by his former prime minister landed huh. when it could, on august 9th, 1938 in 1960. he graduated from the physics and technology faculty of nepa troughs state university. with a degree in mechanical engineering. he worked as

russian authorities democratically elected president yeltsin. they came to the family. so they said we have these be some friendship or making $48.00, you know, they're guaranteed your security and your what year. and the been that, don't you think that you know, these are when all this thinking so cleveland, since the early nineties have been reached in a way that states that home with us. the same story was basically, you know, the law, 8 years after 2014, the we, the conductor together, who don't, don't have so many dangerous, chris seems to think or even thinking, well, that's right, that in the dame, russia, some people might see some, you know, some evidence for when it was active or not so much about defending, they were about taking any action. so basically, even freeland, we've been doing need to, which i doubt, you know, the summer. this will not change much. situational. the ground, you know, defect to these countries inside need for many years. now nature will take up the formula to, to defend them. but again, they are both members of the union. so if you lo